Posted
by
Zonk
on Monday April 18, 2005 @01:40PM
from the *gurk* dept.

Not every worthwhile game title involves headshots, big explosions, high speed
racing, or athletic prowess. The stealth genre, which started to gain attention
with the likes of Tenchu: Stealth Assassin, is now typified by the modern
military series Splinter Cell. The newest title, Chaos Theory, improves on
concepts introduced in previous games, continues to offer a unique multiplayer
experience, and expands the gameplay in a few minor ways. All told, Splinter
Cell : Chaos Theory is a worthy successor to the previous games in the series,
and offers up familiar gameplay that never once feels stale.

Title: Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory

Developer: Ubisoft Montreal

Publisher: Ubisoft

System: Xbox

Reviewer: Zonk

Score: 9/10

Splinter Cell titles
center around the missions of Sam Fisher, an American
military tool in the information warfare age. Chaos Theory, like the titles
that preceded it, follow the exploits of Mr. Fisher as he moves from one
mission to another. Events and characters that mimic real world analogues very
closely fill the game, and despite some nonexistent devices to further gameplay
(like hacking a computer from across a room), the impression you receive is that
Sam Fisher's world is very much our own.

As such, the entire game is steeped in realism to preserve the flavour of the
modern day experience. The graphics and lighting are gorgeous, and the fluidity
of motion that the game's character portray is extremely impressive. The
artificial intelligence of enemy opponents, while not perfect, is certainly
better than many other titles in the stealth genre. This allows for some lovely
emergent gameplay, as you can take actions in the game world and can plan on a logical reaction taking place. The first mission allows
you a perfect opportunity to try this out, with two mercenaries patrolling near
a tent. Taking out the merc outside the tent allows you access to the generator
for a large lighting system nearby. By turning off the generator, you make the
guard inside the tent curious...a vice which gets cats and guards in trouble.

The need for stealth in
the game is paramount, but not as rigorously enforced as
in previous titles. You can set off as many alarms as you like, and until you
are slain the mission isn't over. This, and nearly every other, addition to the
Splinter Cell gameplay library was made to make the game more accessible to
players. The addition of a knife to Sam's arsenal allows him to take out
enemies in a single thrust in near silence. Gunshots are noisy and attract
attention, but laying out your opponents with deadly fire is an accepted way to
complete a mission. The previous titles were extremely punishing of mistakes,
and Chaos Theory counteracts that by allowing Sam to take on a more kick-ass
take-names approach. If you've played the previous incarnations a great deal,
you may find the going easier than you expect. Higher difficulty settings are
provided to challenge the more skilled. This eased gameplay also allows for
more than one way to complete a mission. Even if you decide to kill the captain
of the cargo ship without interrogating him, you can still sweep the ship with
your weapon drawn looking for your target. Arbitrariness and gameyness have
been deliberately reduced.

That sense of realism is
extended by the story and voice acting. The tale
centers around a series of missions which take you from one end of the earth to
the other. Each mission has a good deal of background to it, and the depth of
the Chaos Theory story is entirely at your discretion as the mission briefings
are entirely skippable. Each portion of the mission briefing is handled by one
of the memorable non-player characters, each with their own area of expertise.
The memorable nature of these characters is solely based on the quality of the
dialogue writing, which comes off very natural and spiced with quality humor,
and the skill with which the voice actors portray their roles. Fan favorite Don
Jordan returns as Irving Lambert, and Michael Ironside returns to the tight
fitting bodysuit of Sam Fisher.

The score, by Amon Tobin, nicely accentuates the mood and temp of the game with
a modern vibe that never feels as though it was composed by software. Tobin's
composition, his first for a videogame, is very promising. I hope to hear more
from him in the future.

Like the previous title,
Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory isn't something you have
to enjoy alone. Multiplayer via Xbox Live is once again a unique experience.
The four-player Mercenaries vs. Spies gameplay returns, with some tweaks and
refinements. To ensure that you're briefed on the objectives of the multiplayer
game, you are required to go through a training scenario. The maps allow you a
range of several types of gameplay, including a deathmatch, a disk capture mode
that is a variation on keep-away, and a new story mode. Story mode is probably
the most interesting addition, forcing the mercs and spies to complete several
missions in sequence and tying them all together with a workable plot. Chaos
Theory has a lot of living room local multiplayer potential as well, with four
cooperative levels available. There are several moves that two spies working
together can accomplish, and the gameplay is accentuated by a story which works
the co-op levels in as part of the backstory to the single player campaign.

Nothing is perfect, of course. While I enjoyed the game, my previous experience with Splinter Cell titles is limited. I found the game challenging on Normal mode, but players who have honed their skills on less forgiving titles may view the single player campaign as a cakewalk. The darkness mechanic can start to feel slightly contrived after a while, as you move through areas that wouldn't be as dark as the game allows them to be. The realism of other areas of the game makes it a jarring experience when you find a well guarded part of a bank in pitch blackness. The co-op mode, finally, could have been more fleshed out. Cooperative play is one of the most interesting aspects of modern gaming, and I would have liked to see a more developed co-op aspect for this title. Minor complaints, but the attention to detail that the game takes in all other areas makes weak points stand out.

For fans of the previous games, and players who enjoy modern tales, Splinter
Cell: Chaos Theory is a perfect fit. It has a sensibility all its own, and the
high praise it has garnered around the industry is well deserved. If you're
looking for a stealth action title, Chaos Theory will fit your needs with
military exacting precision.

The inclusion of more relevant graphics on slashdot may be to discourage readers from blocking all images on slashdot pages (which would block some advertisements...)... in addition to graphics sometimes being very useful of course.

I'm a big fan of the Splinter Cell series. I love the stealth genre, and I was first in line to buy the game after I played the demo a few weeks ago. It's still extremely unstable, however. I don't mean unstable like SC2, where the game would crash after browsing for more than 10 seconds for a multiplayer game to join, more like... piss poor porting. I was getting blue screens during play, until I read on a forum to uncheck one of the advanced video options, that only prevented the blue screens while the game was running, it would then do it every time I quit the game. After a few days of doing that, I played it again, and it said my saves were corrupted. Needless to say, I'm not impressed with Ubisoft.

Just thought I'd point out something that's probably not widely known.

In my experience in games dev (and that of others), the dreaded PC game demo is usually demanded by the marketing dept, and put together as quickly as possible, and will usually not reflect final code of the product. It may not even have gone through much more than basic compatibility testing, as your experience suggests. Quite often it doesn't even feature on the schedule (at least, not in a realistic way).

Feel free to lambast me with the observation that what the hell is the point of the demo if it doesn't give people a true idea of the game, or actually puts them off buying it.

Because I'd agree with you completely. But the devs usually don't get to make those decisions.

Ubisoft does some good stuff, like Beyond Good and Evil, but I certainly wasn't impressed by the hatchet job they did on Pandora Tomorrow for the PS2. At one point, Sam's female contact tells him to make his way across the rooftops and if she sees him again, she'll quit the operation. You can't get to the rooftops, and in order to continue the game, you have to follow her and talk to her again. The whole storyline was full of holes.

The guy's older than me, yet I can't help but think that I have far more gaming experience. He's apparantly unaware of just what happens when a genre becomes popular.

Just you wait Zonk. Give it two years and these stealth games will contain headshots, big explosions, high speed racing, and athletic prowess. As well as conspicuously placed fruit in numerous quantities, which will be required to develop the miracle drug that saves the president from heart failure (and opens up secret fantasy levels with stars and hearts).

I don't know. If you ask me, "Thief" was really the origin of the genre. Sure, there were older games which involved stealth to some extent, but the many of the conventions and much of the gameplay of the first-person/third-person sneaker were born with "The Dark Project".

I don't really see your reasoning on that one. "Thief, The Dark Project" was released in 1998, and is more centered on using magic and other interesting extraordinary abilities to accomplish some number of goals.

"Metal Gear 1", on the other hand, was released in 1987, and is basically the epithome of the first stealth game. While I do see the whole "hide in the shadows" aspect of "Thief," it seems that sneaking around in MG1 with a knife, pistol, full-body suit, and pair of night vision goggles really de

I'm not claiming that "Thief" was the first game to employ any stealth techniques into the gameplay. Many games had some instances where the character could be hidden, or certain techniques that could be used to avoid triggering an enemy attack. However, as far as I can remember, "Thief" was the first game to do something comparable to "Splinter Cell". It put you into a 3D world with gameplay resembling a FPS or TPS, except the enemy AI had defined [semi-]realistic senses of sight and hearing which were limited in various ways by the environment and exploited for the sake of sneaking through the entire game unnoticed.

So was "Thief" the first game to allow the player to avoid the notice of enemy AI? No. Was it the origin of the modern First/Third-Person-Sneaker? I'd say yes. That it uses magic instead of night-vision-goggles is inconsequential. Think look-and-feel. Think gameplay conventions.

'm not claiming that "Thief" was the first game to employ any stealth techniques into the gameplay. Many games had some instances where the character could be hidden, or certain techniques that could be used to avoid triggering an enemy attack. However, as far as I can remember, "Thief" was the first game to do something comparable to "Splinter Cell".

Metal Gear Solid for the Playstation came out 2 months before Thief on the PC. This goes back to what everyone has been saying though, Metal Gear invented th

There is almost no magic in Thief; the closest you get is the health potions, or the enemies that fire magic at you.

I think what defines "stealth game" is probably an entirely subjective thing; I've never played any of the Metal Gear games, so that won't define it for me. On the other hand, I know that a lot of the more dedicated Thief players consider it to be utterly against the spirit of the game to kill anyone. Google for walkthroughs, and you'll see ones that do their utmost to leave as little mark on

On the other hand, I know that a lot of the more dedicated Thief players consider it to be utterly against the spirit of the game to kill anyone.

AKA "ghosting". If you open a door, you have to close it. If you unlock a door, you have to re-lock it before you complete the level. If you extinguish a candle or torch, you need to re-ignite it. You can't kill anyone or knock anyone out. You can only move or take object of value that you're stealing (money or mission items)-- otherwise, you must leave every

If we are going for the originator wouldn't it actually have been Castle Wolfenstein [wikipedia.org]? That came out roughly six years before the original Metal Gear and featured stealth as an integral game mechanic.

Though I agree with the other poster who wrote that the stealth gameplay in Splinter Cell has far more in common with what Thief pioneered rather than the simpler Metal Gear/Castle Wolfenstein stealth gameplay models.

That came out roughly six years before the original Metal Gear and featured stealth as an integral game mechanic.

Stealth? In Wolfenstein? Seriously? I can't wrap my head around this one; I consider that game the start of a completely different genre, that of the run-and-gun kill-everything FPS. I can honestly say I don't recall the stealth element.

Pandora Tomorrow was ok, but it seemed to have many more disk/protection/crash/bad patch issues than SC1 and SC3. That's not surprising considering 1 and 3 were made from the Montreal division and 2 wasn't. It appears they take their time, and were working on SC3 at the same time SC2 was rushed out the door elsewhere. All in all, SC2 was fun. That CIA level ward hard the first couple of times.

Playing SC2 on the Xbox I didn't have any big stability problems, however that game felt less refined, and more of a quick-write-a-new-story-and-release-another-game thoughtless process. It was a lot shorter than the first, and felt more "made up" (because the first was based on fact, you know;)

The PS2 version is crippled due to the underpowered hardware. Levels are changed to avoid large areas. Destructible elements (esp lights) aren't destructible, and so on. Pandora Tomorrow was really bad in this respect, and by all accounts CT is as bad or worse.

They say if you only have a PS2 you wont miss the differences, but I sure did with PT. Going to pass on CT - maybe give it a once over on rental, because it really is a massively fun series, but only if you have an Xbox or PC.

That's one of the biggest problems with "Stealth Games".I loved Hitman, and I loved to try to pass a level with the "professional" rating. But still it was usually easier to -silently- kill -everyone-, then proceed through the empty level, than to try to sneak. That is, kill quickly enough so that the enemy can't raise alarm, advance, kill again before the guards see the corpses, and so on. I'd even purposedly trigger "local alarms" just to empty guard rooms and kill the guards, securing my way of return.

that'll work... but then (in hitman, at least) you could not achieve a perfect "silent assassin" rating. for me, the challenge of the hitman series in particular is in attaining that rating, not necessarily in simply completing the level (or completing the level simply).

as it relates to other games, i feel much the same way; i.e. if i'm playing a stealth game, i'm going to try to play stealthily.i'll save screwing around with 100% kill ratios or wild killing sprees or "tricks" to completing levels easily f

i'll save screwing around with 100% kill ratios or wild killing sprees or "tricks" to completing levels easily for

But that's not a trick- it's the most realsitic way to complete the assigned mission. If a game allows you the option of using violence or stealth, the easiest choice is to do both. If it is possible (but difficult) to sneak past 5 guards without them seeing you, it will be easy to sneak up on each one and break his neck.

You sound just like my ex-roommate, who would watch me hiding in the shadows in Thief [wikipedia.org] and say 'I'd find that so boring'.

Heck, I'm not even as hardcore a player as some of us guys [eidosgames.com] are. These folk can spend several hours on a small level, reloading every time an AI even thinks something is up. Infact, a good few play through without saving! Personally I stick to the code of killing nobody, and letting my blackjack do the talking. Even I can spend a lot of time on one section, darting in and out of the sh

While it's great that we all have different tastes, I can't help but think that if people gave the more cerebral and challenging games, Thief in particular, a chance they could come to enjoy it.

If people don't give the more cerebral (and really good) games, like Ico, a chance, the game companies won't make any more, and none of us will get the chance to play them. The way it's going, it'll be just Devil May Cry 4, 5, and 6 - not that DMC isn't a good game, but it's nice to have something different once

Cooperative play is one of the most interesting aspects of modern gaming, and I would have liked to see a more developed co-op aspect for this title.

Excuse me? If I recall I was playing games co-op with my friends back in the NES and SNES days. In fact, a heck of a lot of games back then had some form of co-op. Only in 'modern gaming' has co-op taken a backseat to lots of run of the mill style deathmatch. So no, co-op isn't an aspect of modern gaming; modern gaming is finally reintroducting the co-op back into the game.

With that said, I find the co-op enjoyable. Two issues: needs a save function (there is one, but only while youre playing; if you quit and come back you have to restart the level). Could use more levels, oh, and less slowdown. Sometimes it gets downright awful.

Man, what I really want to see is a similar remake of all co-operatiev arcade games. We got the new X-Men in Legends form, but we need a Ninja Turtles (Battlenexus? what the fuck was that?) and others. Co-op needs to come back in full swing!

The co-op mode, finally, could have been more fleshed out. Cooperative play is one of the most interesting aspects of modern gaming, and I would have liked to see a more developed co-op aspect for this title.

Were we playing the same game? The simple fact that these four HUGE levels (with more to come, eventually) were developed specifically for co-op and require you to work together directly with a teamate (or you can't pass the mission) demonstrates who incredibly well the co-op was designed. I don't thing I can even name another co-op game (aside from Phantasy Star Online) where it was impossible to get through a level without your teamate timing something with you perfectly. Each level has at least one moment where you and your teammate must do something simultaneously in order to get past it, like disarming bombs, mixing chemicals, etc. And several other places where you can't move on to the next area of the level without help from your teammate. On top of that, you can play through these huge levels differently every time if you so choose. Aside from some occasional disconnect and slowdown issues on co-op, I've never seen a better co-op mode in any game, ever, hand's down. Heck, even the simple fact that guards can hear the two of you talking is something special. A less-developed co-op would've been to simply give us the single-player levels and allow two people to play on them (which I'd gladly take as content download).

And admittedly, Zonk says he doesn't have a lot of previous Splinter Cell experience, but this one is hands-down easy if you want it to be. No more trial-and-error gameplay, alternate paths, added knife ability (which makes it really easy to kill armed people even after they've spotted you), more accurate guns (also easier to kill), and a handy save anywhere feature, this one is pretty easy to get through compared to the other two games. As a result, I've managed to get 100% ratings on a couple levels the first time through, without really even meaning to (which means not being detected, completing all objectives, and not killing anyone).

Tom Clancy's jingoistic pro-military, pro-police-state propaganda and lackluster dialogue aside, the game is beautiful and it really hits its stride when you plug into the internet and start testing out their multiplayer modes.

The co-op play is a real joy to behold, and the versus play is a really original take on multiplayer "shooters." You wouldn't think a 2v2 where one side has guns and the other side is devoted to stealth would work. It's not perfect, but it's surprisingly successful, noticeably balanced, and deep.

There is just nothing quite like sneaking up behind a merc as he saunters past you down a corridor, grabbing his neck, holding down the button and whispering something offensive into his ear before you snap his neck. Or for that matter, watching a spy do a 20 foot header through the air from a grenade you dropped right at his feet while he was trying to sneak past you.

When you see an alarm go off, and are rushing through some dark basement area towards it and think you catch something moving in the shadows, but it disappears when you shine your flashlight on it, you feel real fear.:D

Congrats to Ubisoft. No dobut they'll make the mint selling extras over the XBox live channel to boot...

Tom Clancy's jingoistic pro-military, pro-police-state propaganda and lackluster dialogue aside, the game is beautiful and it really hits its stride when you plug into the internet and start testing out their multiplayer modes.

I feel guilty for enjoying military-themed PC games because of their inherent propaganda qualities. Lately I've been wondering if even just playing the games makes me a bad person considering the current state of the world.

Despite years of playing GTA, I have never been a gang member, robbed anyone, killed anyone AFAIK, stolen an Apache gunship, hijacked a car, or listened to rap music by choice. Games are escapism, not a pledge of fidelity to a character's lifestyle -- unless you have a much bigger pro

GTA is over the top and has always been presented as pure escapism, so I don't consider it to be in the same class.

Miltary-themed games like the stuff that Ubi puts out under the Tom Clancy banner, various combat flight sims, serious war games, etc. put you in a role where you're trying to use realistically-simulated tactics and gear to accomplish a goal that would be a goal of the real-world military. In some senses this constitutes an endorsement of the military's real-world goals. If you're trying to

GTA is over the top and has always been presented as pure escapism, so I don't consider it to be in the same class.

Really. There are people suing Take2 because the game was so realistic it allegedly made their kids go out and commit crimes. People are suing Take2 because dialog in the games allegedly leads to racist hate crimes. Your distinctions appear to be less than widely accepted.

Miltary-themed games like the stuff that Ubi puts out under the Tom Clancy banner, various combat flight sims, se

The only thing I found lacking in the game was knowing where to go in Co-Operative play. In addition to removing your binoculars you do not have access to a map. This was frustrating on the first co-op level in trying to figure out how to get into the big fancy server room to end the mission, without really knowing where you had to go.

With the game being so new there were no walkthroughs for the co-op mode either. But I am pretty sure that has changed by now.

I hadn't noticed the lack of blood until you mentioned it here, actually - mostly because the game encourages you to use non-lethal, or at least non-bloody disposal techniques on your enemies. There may well be a lack of blood if you shoot someone in the face, I couldn't tell you, but it hasn't made any difference to my enjoyment at all.

If Ubisoft did put blood in, I'd imagine they'd want to integrate it into the gameplay - perhaps have bodies you've shot leave blood trails that other enemies can notice, a

Don't know why they had to change the Interface 3 times in 3 games. IMHO the first one with the PDA was the best. It obivous they were going by sponsors, ie Palm 1st game, Ericsson 2nd game, 3rd game ????. The "in-game" interface for the 3rd game is slow and looks just like some shitty menu. It just make me feel like I'm back at the game menu as opposed to a spy looking at the pda on his wrist.

Also I preferred the night vision from the previous games where once you switched it on the whole screen just went "green". Now when you turn on night vision you look through a green fisheye lens. Its still useable, just not worth doing and not and improvement.

Finally I have to say if you've played the 1st two games even on Expert this game is just way too easy. I tried to challenge myself, but even though I didn't set off 1 single alarm nor get seen by guards the game was just too easy.

Finally, finally,:) They HAVE to do expansion packs. Beyond them wanting your money with reagards to the single player game there is just no reason to keep putting out entirely new games. All the tools they need are already done, just put out expansion packs for $19.95 every 3 months and trust me people WILL buy them. Shit if they just put on expansion packs for the 1st game I'd pay again what I've already spent on games 2 and 3.

Finally I have to say if you've played the 1st two games even on Expert this game is just way too easy. I tried to challenge myself, but even though I didn't set off 1 single alarm nor get seen by guards the game was just too easy.

I must just suck then, because I've found it harder than the first two. The guards seem to be able to see you if your light meter is one tick about pitch black, and they all apparently have cybernetic hearing.

Actually there was an expansion pack for the first one. Well, not technically a ex. pack in that it wasn't sold seperately. It came withe the UK gold edition of SP1. I saw it once online and was going to download it as I can not buy it here in canada.

I'm looking forward to trying this one. I lost interest in the later stages of the first and second SC games because of the fascination with alarm levels and so on. I like more run and gun in my games (like Halo 2) so the change suits me!

The single player is excellent. They fixed a lot of little problems in the previous games. You can switch shoulders for your weapon (which was the biggest UI change I saw, which was great). Unfortunately, you can't switch your firing mode for your SC-20 now. It's "pressure sensitive"--so good luck not accidentally squeezing off a few bullets instead of one.

That being said, the multiplayer is impossible unless you play with someone you know and you're using a mic. Also, the multiplayer isn't the same executable as the SP game, and it's probably nearly unchanged from Pandora Tomorrow. Which is irritating because I mouse with my left hand, but the multiplayer doesn't recognize left mouse button mappings.

Also, the multiplayer isn't the same executable as the SP game, and it's probably nearly unchanged from Pandora Tomorrow.

I heard about this, I read that it is actually the pandora tomorrow engine for the multiplayer. Why the hell would they do this?! That would be like Buying Halflife 2 but the multiplayer uses the halflife 1 engine.

I guess a weird benefit of this is if your system can't handle the single player well, it has a better chance of being fine for multiplayer.

. . . are great. "Supermodified" is very catchy, but nowhere near as polished as "From Out of Nowhere." I have the soundtrack to Chaos Theory and I like it a lot, but it doesn't really show off how insanely detailed his compositions can get.

I personally think Permutations is perhaps his most-diverse album, and certainly the quirkiest (followed very closely by Bricolage). Nightlife and Toys will forever be on my iPod, I come back to them again and again no matter my mood in music.

Even before he was Amon Tobin, he was Cujo, and he released one album under that name-- Adventures in Foam. Its not (in my opinion) nearly as diverse as his recent stuff but there are some good slow downtempo jams on it (very good chill music).

For those who have never played any of the splinter cell games, Chaos Theory does not lend itself to the pick-up-and-go person without a little frustration along the way. I consider myself somewhat proficient at figuring stuff out with unfamilar games, but I actually had to *cough* break out the manual *cough* to figure out how to do most everything. I'm assuming the 'how-to' stuff is covered in previous games. The only other complaint is - what is with game developers not supporting at least 480p? Regardle

You've got that right. I tried loading the OXM demo for Chaos Theory and running through the "tutorial" videos. All they did was confuse me, and I wound up quitting without launching the actual demo game. I mean, would it have killed them to put some actual text captions on those videos, saying "PRESS (A) TO JUMP" or whatever?

First off, I must say that I truly enjoy Chaos Theory as a game. However, I have to bring up the fact that I believe the Ubisoft tried to ruin the game with a number of other problems. For example, the extensive DVD checking which takes place during each and every launch of the game. Apparently, it has an issue with my DVD drive, such that it takes several minutes to perform the check.
On my brand new AMD64 laptop, it refuses to run, since the GeForce 4 440 is apparently not good enough. However, I understand it to run on lesser GeForce cards.
And last, but not least, it includes two (poorly printed) serial numbers required for play. The install key appears to be the same (on the three copies which I have seen) and the serial number has never been asked for (perhaps for online play?). Why do they insist on making this so diffucult?
In summary: Great game...once you get to play it!

I don't know about the GeForce4 440 laptop version, but I recall the 3-digit (I think something like 420, 440, and 460, though I'm not sure) GF4-branded PCI and AGP cards were called "GeForce4 MX" and were, I think, closer to souped-up GeForce 2 cards than actual GeForce4, and thus lacked the shader capabilities required for some of the essential graphical effects used in the game. The upshot is that the minimum GeForce 4 card that supported shaders was, I think, the 4200. And I'm pretty sure all GeForce 3

I have the first Splinter Cell on my XBox. I feel like it was a waste of money (the game, not the XBox;)) It's all eye candy and no substance. Realism is touted as one of the games selling points, but let's be honest, it seems to be restricted only to the graphics, not to the actual plot, etc.

The AI is extremely simple. Enemies have no memory what-so-ever. That's so realistic! Disturb them a couple of times and after a while they'll always go back to what they were doing. Somehow they seem to be able to see in the dark too! And how many people on a level must disappear before others start noticing that it's become awfully quiet? How can they shoot so accurately when I've taken out all the lights, and I've moved around?

The game is also extremely linear with a very constrained map. Furthermore, this is another game (like Halo) that I completed in under a week. It has less substance and real game play than most of the FPS games I've played over the last 10+ years. It's all fancy graphics and nothing else. That's my opinion... so will somebody please tell me what the attraction is?

I guess I should have said in my first post that I'd played the demo of the new game off the recent XBox magazine and found these things were still an issue. There was one bit in the middle where there's these guys running around the tents. I'm shooting through the material, and they're just running the same loops over and over and over and over again. Even Quake 2's poor AI (7 year old game?) is better than that. And all that shooting they do doesn't bring anybody running from the other side of the wal

Agreed, the AI needs a great deal of work. That was my complaint as well...lots of buddies missing but nobody looking for them.

The game has gotten better in terms of its linearity? in this version. You mentioned you played the demo of the Peruvian lighthouse, which is VERY linear and indicative of the first version. Some of the more advanced levels in this version are not nearly so linear. However, the argument still remains true for the most part. You have to complete certain tasks before others open.

GS: Right. The press pack for the soundtrack said most of it was recorded almost entirely with acoustic instruments that you then modified electronically. Did you play all the instruments yourself, or did you--

AT: Actually there's things that you'll hear when you listen to the soundtrack which will be very revealing about all that. I'd rather not go into the recording techniques too much, if that's OK?

Not all sampling is taking a complete part of a song and using it some other track, like Puffy Diddy P Daddy "Vote or Die" Poopy Dumbass Combs. I don't agree with that at all. Taking a sound from a song and reusing it in a way where it doesn't sound like the original song with new lyrics is fine.

Sampling is just using digital audio as a tool for making music. I have made my own samples for several years now. I used to use loops when I was just starting making electronic music. A sample is nothing more

I have played all three SCs and I can say I have enjoyed this one the most.

Pros:Best cut scenes and voice actingGreat storylineAddition of the soundmeter has added a great deal of skill necessary to complete some missionsBetter AI (still pretty average overall)Mission statisticsDetailed levels and character interactions (those going through Japanese house through the floor shaft know what I mean)Sam's mannerisms change when moving close to objects (creeping up on people)Better and more realistic weapon selectionThe EM jammer on the pistol (no need to blow out every light)Breaking, kicking in doorsPrimary, secondary, bonus, and opportunity objectivesHacking computersChanging weapon shouldersJumpy NPCs when you have spooked them a couple of times

Misses:Mission statistics subtract for all kills but not for knocking everyone out...would like to have seen this modified to at least deduct from the mission score if a NPC was not guarding a particular computer or target. Mission scores should reward pure stealth.No back-to-the-wall shootingAI still is pretty bad, but is getting better. For instance, I take down a buddy and the other NPC does not try to look for him. Also, everyone seems to have radios but NPCs are not worried when someone doesn't check-in. However, it has gotten better, if doors are left open or closed the NPCs will get suspicious also the NPCs will at least use some squad tactics when challenged.

In all I have enjoyed SC:CT a great deal. Also, I will be crawling back through the game again because the mission statistics now make it a challenge to try to go through the entire game unnoticed and unseen.

While I give credit for the writers for trying to spice up the cliched subject matter (which, like all Tom Clancy material, revolves around terrorism) with a little infobabble (we've moved past portable nukes), I've broken down laughing many times while playing this game.

I can't speak for laymen, but as a guy who has taken quite a few classes on formal languages, algorithms, and the theory of computation, terms like "weaponized algorithms", the mystery of "512 encryption", the forbidden secret of "recursiv

I can't speak for laymen, but as a guy who has taken quite a few classes on formal languages, algorithms, and the theory of computation,

Then you'll really enjoy Dan Brown's Digital Fortress [amazon.com]. (Although personally, I couldn't make it across the back cover before feeling sick...)

Some of the Amazon reviews are simultaneously hilarious and sad, particularly when someone thinks she actually learned something from the book. Naturally, Cryptonomicon would be the antidote to such illusions, but good luck getti

My little brother has a PS2, and about 2 years ago, I played Splinter Cell for a bit to see what it was all about. I really enjoyed it, although I hated the alarms going off when I left some dumbass dead in a hallway. Irritating, but part of the whole "don't leave evidence behind" concept, I guess.

Does this series translate well to a PC? And is there a strong multiplayer group out their playing the MP version for PC?

I installed Windows XP (yes, a "genuine" copy) just so I could play this game on my desktop.Basically it comes complete with crappy/annoying copy protection. It installs some weird driver that requires you to reboot(!) after installation. You then have to enter two keys: one from the manual and one from the disc case. Then you are allowed to play the game that you just laid down $60 for.They sure invested a lot of time in copy protection. Not that it did them any good - I looked and found plenty of pre-crac

What about the ads for "Airwaves" chewing gum in the game? I haven't played it myself, but I hear that there is at least one CG scene that is essentially a gum commercial. Sam Fisher whips out the gum, label-out, the camera takes a look at the stuff, and he pops it in his mouth.

From what I hear, it adds nothing to the game, and is really blatant. Even worse than the ads in Burnout 3 or Need for Speed Underground 2.

The score, by Amon Tobin, nicely accentuates the mood and temp of the game with a modern vibe that never feels as though it was composed by software. Tobin's composition, his first for a videogame, is very promising. I hope to hear more from him in the future.

I too am a big fan of Amon Tobin and own almost all of his albums (aside from this new soundtrack), but come on. Read thoroughly, next time.

Composed by software? Software (for the most part) doesn't compose. I assume they meant "created with software". Now what is wrong with music sounding like it was created with software? 10 years ago, that would have been a bad thing, but now many many people do all their music with software. Modern music (sequencers, softsynths, softsamplers, effects) software is very powerful. So by listening to music, you're no longer going to be able to tell if it was created with software or hardware.

It's not an xbox game. It is on PC as well. The demo has been out for a while. I believe it's also on PS2.

Oh, and instead of $200 for a limited console, you can pay $300 for a video card and your other upgrades. I just don't understand "consoles have to be purchased and maintained for years to come". What maintenance are you talking about? You mean, like swapping out cards, adding memory, and the like? Oh, that's right, consoles don't require that at all. In fact, last I heard, that was one of their big va

In the corner of my room lays three, unused, obsolete, $150 consoles. In my corner lays my single computer I've always had updated occasionally for the same price of those three consoles. Difference? My PC hasn't been lost in the interest of game developers. No new games released for my SNES vs whats just released today for my PC. Plus, I can use my PC to surf, print, type, develop, and things I can't even imagine. The day my console can do that is the day my console becomes an un-upgradeable computer

I agree with your second point, but I'd also add that it is pretty hard to get PCs to play games more than 6 years old. Even non-DOS games have a lot of problems, especially those games that only work on Win95. And I still miss some of my DOS games (though I suppose a lot of the more worthwhile ones have win-friendly ports, like quake).

I've still got an Atari 2600, a nintendo, genesis, dreamcast, etc., and none of them have ever had to be "maintained" (expect maybe blowing dust out of the nintendo). I real

This is what I do. I build a new bleeding edge pc and every other year I sell it to my friends for cost in new parts - 150.00. This usually gets me enough cash to build a new bleeding edge pc for 300-450.00.

I feel that 450.00 to play the newest games and do all my job functions as well as all the other things I do with my pc (game mods, internet browsing, programming, etc) is well worth it compared to the 200.00 I spent on my xbox.

That said, as keyboards and mice become more common for consoles, and as I

The people who really suffer are those who did buy the game, and want to make their legal archive/backup copy. I used to make a copy, which I used to play the game. The original I kept in a safer place where it was less likely to be damaged. Now however, I like to make CD images and play off of those, which I think fair use easily allows.

The big joke is that these companies spend so much money on copy protections that won't be w

I recently bought the game, and wasn't woried about the copy protection. Long story short, the Starforce software broke my box.

Long story: I installed the game, but for some reason the game prompted me to reboot after the install. I have a lot of games and, in my experience, for that to happen is rare. So I reboot, and get a blue-screen. Reboot again. Another blue-screen. Finally located the cause, through safe mode, found the registry entry, and nuked it. Now my box is fine, but even after a re-inst